Preoperative diagnosis of 221 consecutive ovarian masses: scoring system and expert evaluation

Objective: The aim of our work was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a scoring system versus subjective assessment of the risk of malignancy of pelvic masses achieved by gynecologist/sonologists in the preoperative triage of a busy gynecology department.

Methods: One hundred and eighty-two consecutive patients who underwent surgical removal of ovarian neoplasms were examined. In 39 patients pelvic masses were bilateral. The total number of neoplasms analyzed in this series was 221. Lesions were examined and scored according to the sonographic characteristics. Gynecologist/sonologists also recorded a subjective evaluation of the adnexal masses defining them as "probably benign", and "suspicious/probably malignant". Preoperative ultrasound risk assessment was compared to the final pathologic report and diagnostic accuracy was calculated. CA125 was obtained in all patients and its independent and combined accuracy was calculated.

Results: The sensitivity of the scoring system and subjective evaluation was 86% and 95% respectively, specificity was 79% and 91% with a positive predictive value of 41% and 53%. The frequency of positive diagnoses for CA125 was 44% due to the high prevalence of endometrosis in this series (48%). In premenopausal patients (75%) the specificity was 93% and 89% for scoring and subjective evaluation, respectively. The combined use of morphological scoring and CA125 achieved higher specificity and positive predictive values both for the whole series and in premenopausal patients.

Conclusions: These results confirmed that the experience of gynecological surgeons with ultrasound skills, outperforms the morphological indexing assessment of ovarian masses. Nonetheless an easy sonographic descriptive scoring system is not significantly lower in accuracy than the expertise achieved by gynecologists with sonographic skills.

Transvaginal sonography; Ovarian neoplasm; Morphological scoring system; Serum markers

[1] Van Nagell J.R., Higgins R.V., Donaldson E.S.. Gallion H.H., Powell D.E., Pavlik E.J. et al.: 'Transvaginal sonography as a screening method for ovarian cancer: a report of the first 1000 cases screened". Cancer, 1990, 65, 573.

[2] Granberg S., Norstrom A., Wikland M.: "Tumors in the lower pelvis as imaged by vaginal sonography". Gynecol. Oneal., 1990. 37, 224.

[3] Valentin L.: ·'Pattern recognition of pel vie masses by gray-scale ultrasound imaging: the contribution of Doppler ultrasound" Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 1999, 14, 338.

[4] Timmerman D., Schwarzler P., Collins W.P., Clarehout F., Coenen M., Amant F. et al.: "Subjective assessment of adnexal masses with the use of ultrasonography: an analysis of interobserver variability and experience". Ultrasound Ob.1tet. Gynecol.,1999, 13, 11.

[5] Sassone A.M.. Timor-Tritsch I.E., Artner A., Carolyn W., Warren W.B.: "Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy". Obstet. Gynecol., 1991, 78, 70.

[6] Lerner J.P., Timor-Tritsch I.E., F ederman A., Abramovich G "Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system. Am.J. Ohstet Gynecol.,1994. 170, 81.

[7] De Priest P.O., Shenson D., Fried A., Hunter J.E., Andrews S.J., Gallion H.H. et al.: "A morphology index based on sonographic findings in ovarian cancer". Gynecol. Oncol., 1993, 51, 7.

[8] Ferrazzi E., Zanetta G.. Dordoni D.. Berlanda N.. Mezzopane R., Lissoni G.: "Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study'. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 1997, 10. 192.

[9] Tailor A., Jurkovic D., Bourne T.H., Collins W.P., Campbell S.: "Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using multivariate logistic regression analysis". Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 1997, 10, 41.

[10] Alcazar J.L.. Jurado M.:'"Using a logistic model to predict maiignancy of adnexal masses based on menopausal status, ultrasound morphology, and color Doppler findings". Gynecol. Oncol., 1998, 69, 146.

[11] Biagiotti R., Desii C.. Vanzi E., Gacci G.: "Predictmg ovanan malignancy: application of artificial neural networks to transvaginal and color doppler flow US". Radiology, 1999, 210, 399.

[12] Berlanda N., Ferrari M.M., Mezzopane R., Boero V., Grijuela B., Ferrazzi E., Pardi G.: "The impact of a multiparameter, ultrasound based triage on surgical management of adnexal masses". Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol., 2002, 20. 181.

[13] Maggino T., Gadducci A., D'Addario V., Pecorelli S., Lissoni A.. Stella M. et al.: "Prospective multicentric study on CA125 postmenopausal pelvic masses". Gynecol. Oncol., 1994. 54, 117.

[14] Strigini F.A.L.,G adducci A.. Del Bravo B.,F erdeghini M.,G enazzani A.: "Differential diagnosis of adnexal masses with transvaginal sonography, color flow imaging, and serum CA125 assay in pre- and postmenopausal women". Gynecol. Oneal., 1996, 61, 68.

[15] Valentin L.:''Comparison of Lerner score, Doppler ultrasound examination, and their combination for discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses". Ultrasound Ohstet. Gynecol., 2000, 15, 143.

[16] Romagnolo C., Maggino T., Zola P., Sartori E., Gadducci A., Landoni F.: "An analysis of different approaches to ovarian cysts in Italy". Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2004, 25, 183.

[17] Ueland F.R., DePriest P.O., Pavlik E.J., Kryscio R.J., van Nagell J.R., Jr.: "Preoperative differentiation of malignant from benign ovarian tumors: the efficacy of morphology indexing and Doppler flow sonography". Gynecol. Oncol., 2003, 91, 46.